Warning; We are not a politically correct site. Don't like us? Don't read.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Congressman Sean Roberts: Keep Baby Veronica in Oklahoma

Sean Roberts is a Republican member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

I rarely get involved in pending court cases - and never publicly - but after reviewing the facts of the case, it is clear that Veronica Brown should be solely placed with her father, Dusten Brown, in Oklahoma.

The jurisdiction of this case should be in Oklahoma and the adoption appears to be illegal. Veronica Brown is a born citizen of Oklahoma and the Cherokee Nation.

How can the failure to properly notify the Cherokee Nation with the correct name and birthday be justified? This adoption process is laying the ground work for evading an Amber Alert, since so many laws were violated to lead to the adoption.

My mother, having adopted my older brother and sister, realizes the importance of the heritage that she could not give them during adolescent years when they are trying to find their identities.

She recently said that as an adoptive parent she "could not imagine putting a child and a birth parent through this."

Many times she described how biological parents must have loved their children unselfishly to give them up when they could not care for them. But this is not the case, as Brown did not give up his rights in accordance with the law and has proven his ability to raise his child.

It is important to maintain the heritage and culture of a child if possible. There are many children without any parents who are looking for a loving family and home.

I'm sure the adoptive parents love Veronica, but the natural father loves her also and has the legal right to the child. I can't believe the adoptive parents are doing everything in their power to terminate the parental rights of the father.

I wonder what she will think of them when she is old enough to understand what they did?

There are some who believe it is in the best interest of the child to be with the couple from South Carolina. We are on a slippery slope when we begin discussing the best interests of a child in a case like this.

What is next, taking children away from single parents or from a low-income family or veterans on deployment to place the child with two rich parents because they can provide more and pay for it in court?

It is always in the best interest of a child to be with a biological parent who wants them.

I agree with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Supreme Court opinion. He said biological parents have legal rights and there is no reason in law or policy to dilute those rights.

Federal law was clearly ignored in this case. The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 provides that to relinquish parental rights an Indian parent must do so in writing, do so before a judge who must certify that the parent understood his or her actions, and a relinquishment may not be executed prior to 10 days after the child's birth.

The Indian parent also may withdraw the consent to an adoption at any time prior to a final order or within two years of the final order if their consent was obtained by fraud or duress.

According to South Carolina Supreme Court, the adoptive couple made no efforts to comply with these requirements of federal law.

Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, Justice Sonia Sotomayor states that there is nothing to prevent the grandparents, Tommy and Alice Brown, from filing for adoption to adopt the child. This might be the best choice of action to keep the child with her Oklahoma family.

I will continue to review the case to improve our laws to further protect parental rights and the rights of children to stay with their God-given parents.

I will do everything to protect the rights of parents, preserve the culture and rights of children, preserve the adoption process for children that need a home, honor the Indian Child Welfare Act and fight for veterans who fight for us.
------------------------------------
What is really disturbing about cases like this is, the bought and payed for adoption of these children policy is taken into account by the so call justices of the supreme court. The idea that the birth mother was "paid" to give up her child without the fathers consent is sick, never should anyone be given money for a human being, as a matter of fact that is called....
SLAVERY.....
A civil war was fought over the idea that buying and selling of humans is one of the most evil of all human acts, so the supreme court who gave this child back to the two clowns (the capobianco) who bought her just enforced a slavery law....

I did not put a link to the story above because of the comments, most were bigoted against native people...

No comments: